Sperry Corp. v. United States

In Sperry Corp. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 736, 742-743 (Cl. Ct. 1987), the federal Claims Court ruled against a challenge based on the Origination Clause as follows:

“

To reasonably allocate the cost of maintaining the Tribunal, Congress enacted a one and a half percent charge to be applied against the monies awarded successful claimants. There can be no doubt that the act raises revenue. The question is however, does it raise revenue in such a manner that it should have originated in the House rather than the Senate? The answer must be no. The purpose of the act is not to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word (i.e. to support the government) but to expedite the settlement of claims against Iran and to pass the cost of maintaining the Tribunal on to those who ultimately benefit most from it. Thus, any revenue raising is incidental to the purpose of the Act and therefore does not violate the Origination Clause.